Today’s summary decision in RNC v. FEC by the U.S. Supreme Court is welcome news for anyone disturbed by the pay-to-play model of democracy and commerce in Washington.  Just 7 years ago, the Court in the landmark McConnell v. FEC decision upheld the soft money provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in their entirety. 

It would have been irresponsible for the high Court to revisit that issue again and show an utter lack of respect for judicial precedent.  After all, nothing has really changed since the McConnell decision, except of course for the composition of the Court, hardly a reason to overturn its decision of a few years ago.

Before BCRA was passed into law, funds in unlimited amounts were being contributed to national party committees from unrestricted sources (e.g., corporations, unions, etc.).  These staggering soft money contributions were a blatant circumvention of the federal contribution limits.  The expansive record compiled in McConnell clearly demonstrated the deeply corrosive effect these unregulated soft money contributions had on our democracy.  The Supreme Court’s decision today leaves these important restrictions in place.  

The Campaign Legal Center filed an amici brief in the case on behalf of the BCRA sponsors.

Today's 8-1 decision in Doe v. Reed is an encouraging development for our democracy, especially after recent decisions from the Supreme Court turning the clock back a century on campaign finance laws.

The decision marks the second major victory for disclosure from the High Court in a year. A little noted but important element of the controversial Citizens United v. FEC decision was the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling to uphold the challenged disclosure provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Today, again by a wide margin, the Supreme Court has made clear that disclosure of those signing referenda petitions does not on its face violate the First Amendment.

Opponents of campaign finance laws, including disclosure provisions, repeatedly claim that Congress can make "no law" that regulates political speech and have used that argument to claim that campaign finance laws, including disclosure provisions, are unconstitutional. Today's ruling flatly rejects this overbroad claim. But the challenge to disclosure in Doe v. Reed is only the first of a string of lawsuits challenging all forms of political disclosure that are making their way through the courts, cases that seek to make anonymity the coin of the political realm.

Members of Congress considering the DISCLOSE Act should be encouraged by today's ruling from the Court, which highlights once again the public's right to know.

Even Justice Scalia, a frequent critic of campaign finance regulations, had encouraging words for proponents of disclosure in his concurrence:

"There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously ( McIntyre ) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."

Passage of the DISCLOSE Act by the House today is a victory for citizens over special interests. The fact that today's vote was so close is a sad testament to the power of special interests in Washington. Polling showed 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, opening elections to a flood of corporate and union treasury funds. Better than 7 in 10 Americans wanted a legislative response, but special interests very nearly carried the day.

Special interests waged a campaign of misinformation and misrepresentations. The DISCLOSE Act, while not perfect, is a clear improvement over current law which was left in tatters by the recent decision of the Roberts Court. If the Senate soon follows suit, and we hope it will, the American people will be able to learn who is really trying to influence our elections and who is attempting to buy power in Washington.

It is always notable in Washington when a piece of legislation is able to join groups from the left and the right in common purpose. In the case of the DISCLOSE Act, what the groups who opposed the DISCLOSE Act had in common is that they feared public scrutiny of their big donors and their efforts to sway our elections.

Notwithstanding high-minded claims of First Amendment rights and concerns about "chilling speech," these groups opposed the DISCLOSE Act because they will have to publicly reveal where they get their funding for their electioneering activities.

Many of these groups say they fear that such disclosure will chill speech. What they may fear even more is that their money will dry up if it is subject to sunlight - that if donors who fund their campaign ads are publicly disclosed, those donors will stop giving as a result. Without such funding, the groups' power in Washington - and the power of those behind them - will be diminished. This is a case where the interests of inside-the-beltway organizations are not necessarily the same as average Americans. As is too often the case in Washington, it's all about big money and buying influence.

The argument that this bill will chill speech is simply a dodge. Just today, the Supreme Court ruled again in favor of disclosure in the political arena. Just as requirements for disclosure of political expenditures were upheld 8 to 1 in theCitizens United case, so too were Washington State disclosure provisions concerning those signing petitions for ballot initiatives in Doe v. Reed. Justice Antonin Scalia, no fan of campaign finance regulation, wrote in concurrence stressing the importance of disclosure in a democracy:

"Plaintiffs raise concerns that the disclosure of petition signatures may lead to threats and intimidation. …There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."

We commend Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE) for their commitment to ensuring this bill moved forward while retaining its core purpose. We also commend Speaker Nancy Pelosi for understanding why this legislation was so important and desperately needed in a post-Citizens Unitedworld, and for holding her caucus together in a very difficult negotiation in the House.

We urge the Senate to take up this bill as quickly as possible and are hopeful that Senators from both sides of the aisle will assess this bill based on its merits for the good of our democracy. If they do, the DISCLOSE Act should be enacted before the fall elections.

With a floor vote expected soon, reform groups are strongly urging Representatives to vote for the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175), and the Manager's Amendment. The groups are emphasizing to Members that they should oppose any amendments to weaken the proposed legislation.

The groups signing the letter included the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

The full text of the letter follows below.

Dear Representative,

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, and the Manager's Amendment, and to oppose all amendments to weaken, undermine or gut the bill.

The organizations include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen.

The DISCLOSE Act is about the basic right of American voters to know the identity of groups spending money to influence their elections and the donors funding these expenditures.

The public's right to know this information was clearly and unequivocally recognized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case.

The Court in an 8 to 1 vote held that disclosure requirements for campaign-related expenditures "do not prevent anyone from speaking," and disclosure "permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way."

The Court further stated that disclosure laws serve important governmental interests in "providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending" so that voters can "make informed choices in the political marketplace."

Voters have a right to know the important campaign finance information the DISCLOSE Act will provide, beginning with the 2010 congressional races.

A narrow exemption has been incorporated in the bill that exempts from donor disclosure the NRA, the Sierra Club and a few other very large c4 organizations. While we object to this exemption, we also recognize that it was added to the bill to prevent the NRA from killing he DISCLOSE Act in the House.

The question this raises for House members is whether the DISCLOSE Act, with its broad-reaching campaign finance disclosure requirements for corporations, labor unions, business trade associations and almost all c4 groups, should be passed or whether it should be killed because of the narrow exemption in the legislation.

We believe the answer to this question clearly is that the DISCLOSE Act should be enacted and we strongly support passage of the legislation with the narrow exemption in the bill.

Passage of the DISCLOSE Act, even with the objectionable NRA exemption, has been endorsed by editorials in The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times .

According to The Washington Post editorial (June 17, 2010):

The question facing House members is whether some disclosure of political spending -- a good deal more disclosure, in fact -- is better than none. We think it is. Under existing rules, those who want to spend money to influence campaigns without revealing their identities can operate through nonprofit organizations or trade associations. The House measure would require these groups to reveal their donors, just as so-called 527 organizations were called on to report contributors after they emerged as important, but shadowy, political players. For those who believe that disclosure is the best defense against corrupting the political process, this new reporting is crucial. Exempting the NRA is obnoxious, but the alternative is even worse.

According to The New York Times editorial (June 17, 2010):

he pending "Disclose" reform requires transparency from the powers financing the expected wave of heightened attack and support ads — even mandating fat cats to identify themselves in commercials indulging their new freedom to spend without limit. Spending would be restricted for corporations that have major government contracts or foreign controls. And disclosure would be mandated for political front groups and money megamachines already being set up by such operatives as Karl Rove, the Bush campaign guru.

None of these protections will be enacted if opponents succeed in using the N.R.A. exemption as an excuse to not act at all.

A ccording to The Los Angeles Times ( June 18, 2010) editorial:

Known as the DISCLOSE Act, the legislation is a response to a wrongheaded Supreme Court decision that came down in January allowing corporations to use their treasury funds to sponsor election-related ads. The bill would require corporations, unions, advocacy groups and some nonprofits to disclose the names of their top donors. Also, the top official of those organizations would have to appear in each advertisement and say that he had approved it.

Even with its exceptions and inconsistencies, the House bill would empower voters by allowing them to assess — and in some cases dismiss — political appeals based on the vested interests of unions, corporations and wealthy individuals.

If the DISCLOSE Act is not enacted, voters will not know the identity of the corporate donors that are funding the Chamber of Commerce's reported $50 million campaign to influence the 2010 congressional elections, and the amounts those corporate donors are giving.

Voters also will not know the names of and amounts given by the wealthy individuals that are funding c4 groups such as American Action Network, recently formed by political operatives to spend a reported $25 million to influence the 2010 congressional elections.

Voters also will not know the names of and amounts given by the wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions that are funding other c4 groups making campaign-related expenditure to influence the 2010 congressional elections, This includes undisclosed contributions to c4 groups run by political operatives from both parties and to c4 groups formed to serve as front or conduit groups for hidden donations.

Our organizations strongly urge you to vote for the DISCLOSE Act and the Manager's Amendment, and to oppose all amendments to weaken, undermine or gut the legislation.

Campaign Legal Center

Common Cause

Democracy 21

Public Citizen

League of Women Voters